O4-7 An alternative framework for HEPA projects: Developing recommendations for the use of the Capability Approach

Abstract Background Using Amartya Sen's capability approach (CA) to conceptualize physical activity (PA) promotion projects has been suggested as a promising alternative to conventional theories, as it focuses on the real opportunities people have to engage in PA rather than on PA behavior alone. The Capital4Health research consortium used the CA to conceptualize and implement PA projects in four different settings across the life-course. The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation of the CA in these projects and to develop recommendations for the use of the concept in future PA promotion projects. Methods Based on an overarching analytical framework, we investigated the utilization of the CA in the individual projects using document analysis, workshops, and group interviews with project teams. Results were used to develop a set of draft principles and recommendations for effectively employing the CA in future projects and as a bridging framework for larger consortia. A participatory process combining elements of action research and Delphi surveys is currently conducted with all members of the Capital4Health consortium to arrive at final set of agreed-upon principles. Results Preliminary results show that the use of the CA varied substantially between projects and settings, but that a number of common conclusions can be drawn. A future framework for using capabilities for PA promotion may focus on three areas: (a) Project conceptualization should address both the target group and relevant multipliers. It should also consider both individual PA competences and structural factors, (b) Evaluation should cover both capabilities for PA as well as actual changes in PA levels to assess health impact on multiple levels, (c) The CA may be very useful to research consortia for developing shared goals and evaluation frameworks. This, however, requires a shared knowledge base and agreement about central theoretical concepts. Conclusions The CA constitutes a potentially useful theoretical basis for both individual PA promotion projects and multi-setting research consortia. However, the application of the concept is complex and may vary significantly between settings. The proposed guiding principles may therefore provide a useful aid to future projects wishing to apply this innovative approach.


Background
Using Amartya Sen's capability approach (CA) to conceptualize physical activity (PA) promotion projects has been suggested as a promising alternative to conventional theories, as it focuses on the real opportunities people have to engage in PA rather than on PA behavior alone. The Capital4Health research consortium used the CA to conceptualize and implement PA projects in four different settings across the life-course. The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation of the CA in these projects and to develop recommendations for the use of the concept in future PA promotion projects. Methods Based on an overarching analytical framework, we investigated the utilization of the CA in the individual projects using document analysis, workshops, and group interviews with project teams. Results were used to develop a set of draft principles and recommendations for effectively employing the CA in future projects and as a bridging framework for larger consortia. A participatory process combining elements of action research and Delphi surveys is currently conducted with all members of the Capital4Health consortium to arrive at final set of agreed-upon principles.

Results
Preliminary results show that the use of the CA varied substantially between projects and settings, but that a number of common conclusions can be drawn. A future framework for using capabilities for PA promotion may focus on three areas: (a) Project conceptualization should address both the target group and relevant multipliers. It should also consider both individual PA competences and structural factors, (b) Evaluation should cover both capabilities for PA as well as actual changes in PA levels to assess health impact on multiple levels, (c) The CA may be very useful to research consortia for developing shared goals and evaluation frameworks. This, however, requires a shared knowledge base and agreement about central theoretical concepts.

Conclusions
The CA constitutes a potentially useful theoretical basis for both individual PA promotion projects and multi-setting research consortia. However, the application of the concept is complex and may vary significantly between settings. The proposed guiding principles may therefore provide a useful aid to future projects wishing to apply this innovative approach. Keywords: Framework Development, Physical Activity Promotion, Participatory Research citation ID: ckac094.032 Measuring capabilities for physical activityhealth outcomes: A Systematic review Till 1 , Susanne Ferschl 1 , Karim Abu-Omar 1 , Peter Gelius 1 of Sportscience and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitä ẗ rnberg, Erlangen, Germany author: Maike.till@fau.de

Background
Health promotion projects commonly measure health outcomes and behavior to provide proof of effectiveness. An alternative concept that focuses on the real opportunities a person can choose from to influence their health is Amartya Sen's capability approach. Numerous tools have been developed to measure capability change in general, but it remains unclear which ones can be applied specifically to physical activity (PA).We therefore conducted a systematic review to identify appropriate tools to measure capabilities for physical activity and health and provide information on their quality.

Methods
The review included a total of 6,850 articles published between 2000 and June 2019 that were identified via searches on PubMed, EbscoHost, and ProQuest. Screenings of titles/ abstracts and full texts were conducted independently by two researchers using Endnote X9 and Microsoft Excel. Identified tools are currently being analyzed regarding their indicators, evaluation methods, quality, and the extent to which they address capabilities for physical activity.

Results
The screening resulted in a total of 49 articles included in the analysis. Preliminary results show a diverse use of methods for measuring capabilities for healthy lifestyles. Preliminary results show that three categories of instruments can be identified: (a) Five studies employed secondary data analysis of specific datasets to extrapolate capabilities for healthy living; (b) five articles dealt with measuring capabilities using qualitative approaches (interviews, video recordings); (c) 39 articles reported on a total of 10 different questionnaires to measure capabilities. We identified only one instrument (employing both a questionnaire and qualitative measures) that explicitly measured capabilities for PA, albeit only for a specific target group.

Conclusions
The identified articles show that capabilities for healthy lifestyles are mostly measured by questionnaire. Available tools are mostly target group-and setting-specific. Currently, there is a dearth of tools that explicitly cover capabilities for PA, especially across settings or target groups. Therefore, more